Ok people so my daughter is in the last year of uni studying Criminology and Psychology and one of the questions on her paper is do you think there are too many details given to the media before a crime committed as even gone to court and does this stop fair judgments being made. I’d love to know what you all think to help her with her paper
Advertisement
Must read Terms of Service & Privacy Policy and be at least 18
Advertisement
Last post
Hey Kelly, that thing happened to my pp, a reality documentary went out giving a very one sided view of the crime that would definitely have prejudiced a jury. It was shown well before their trial.
I’m sorry to hear that. I guess I’ve been guilty of reading something or seeing something and just thinking that’s how it must be I’m not like that now I don’t know if you can trust what is put out there .
It all depends on the source of material, usually if you read maybe 5 or 6 reports you will get the full story. But behind every story is purpose, a reason for it being put out. It's not as passive as it may seem.
I think a lot of it depends on the crime and circumstances. If you like at seemingly more minor crimes, or serious one-off crimes, like murders, that have taken place under certain circumstances - then, yes, I think media coverage could really jeopardise the outcome of such cases.
But something like the Golden State Killer, Joseph DeAngelo being portrayed in the media? I mean, the guy is DNA connected to god knows how many murders and rapes. What could the media possibly do to negatively impact such a thing? Pretty sure the cold hard facts speak for themselves in such instances.
Here in the States around 95% of all cases are plead out versus actually going to trial. I do believe in high profile cases too much information is given out, and it's hard to find a jury pool that either isn't aware of the case or can still be impartial.